Hold Congress Accountable

About FreedomConnector

Find activists, groups, and events right in your own neighborhood. Join FreedomConnector to get involved and learn more about key issues threatening our economic freedom. Whether you’re looking for like-minded people, trying to boost your existing group’s impact, or simply trying to stay up on current events, FreedomConnector is the place to start. See what’s happening in your state today!

Search FreedomWorks

Resources

Blog

State Exchanges - Is This Our Last Hope Against Obamacare?

On Thursday, Republican House Speaker John Boehner gave an interview with ABC News in which he famously declared, "Obamacare is the law of the land". But the battle as they say, has just begun.

FreedomWorks is leading that charge, taking action against the implementation of state-run health exchanges, and by extension, striking a critical blow against the heart of Obamacare.

With a Friday deadline looming, states are pressed with the task of determining whether or not to implement health insurance 'exchanges', a new government-run “marketplace” for obtaining health insurance. These exchanges are designed for the management of billions of taxpayer dollars in insurance premium subsidies that are to be distributed to private insurance companies.

"It’s like a supermarket that only sells cereal. The exchange will sell only the government-designed plan. In most states, exchanges will be an 800 number, a Web site and a government office, like the DMV."

Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute, explains what that really translates to for residents of those states who choose to implement such an exchange.

Practically a microcosm of the entire Obama platform during his first term, and certainly representative of what the future holds should Obamacare indeed become the law of the land.

So how can we use state exchanges to fight the new health care law? Do nothing.

Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh stated that "there could be some delays if the governors refuse to set up the exchanges", but simple delays could beget much larger problems for the health care overhaul. To understand this, it is necessary to understand why these exchanges need to be created in the first place.

The federal government has admitted that it can't pay for this health care 'marketplace', which would cost between $10 to $100 million per year in each state. Hence the necessity for each state to set up its own exchange, shouldering some of the costs.

The problem with that notion is that nowhere in the 2,700 page behemoth known as the Affordable Care Act, is it written that the states will be required to do so; the assumption being that the states would simply go along with the federal governments wishes. Because of this, the government cannot legally enforce the employer mandate "tax" on employers in a state that has not set up an exchange. Without the employer mandate, and without the exchanges to manage the insurance subsidies, ObamaCare falls apart.

That said, there is recourse for the Obama administration, which they have indicated will be sought - implementing federal exchanges in states that do not set up their own.

This creates a two-headed issue, however.

First, a minor matter of money. The bill itself does not budget any money to do the work for the state. This as we mentioned would amount to anywhere between $10 to $100 million per year, per state. A matter more of inconvenience, as the federal government will now have to find ways to obtain that money from other sources - and they will.

The second issue is one that FreedomWorks Vice President of Health Care Policy Dean Clancy believes is the key to nullifying Obamacare. Essentially, when the federal government implements an exchange, attempting to distribute the subsidies and enforce the mandates in the resisting states - it would be illegal. The states involved could then sue.

This alone will probably force Congress to reopen the health care law, opening up an opportunity to properly scrutinize Obamacare with Republicans in control of Congress this time around.

The simple equation for all of this is as follows:

No state exchanges = No mandates + No subsidies = Obamacare doesn’t work

In a July memorandum, Clancy lays out this simple path for the states to take in their battle against Obamacare:

States that have begun to set up health exchanges should stop.

States that have already approved legislation/funding for an exchange should rescind it.

States that have been offered money for exchange implementation should refuse it.

States that have received such money should, if possible, return it.

There's still time. And now, here's what you can do.

First, take a look at this table which shows where each state stands regarding health care exchanges. Currently, 14 states have chosen not to implement an exchange, while 17 others have taken no significant action or have been simply studying their options. If a good portion of those 17 states were to refuse action, it would put a majority at odds with Obamacare, striking a devastating blow to the plan.

Second, the deadline for states to establish their own exchange is Friday, November 16th. FreedomWorks is setting up state specific action pages for you. These will be an invaluable resource for concerned citizens to contact their governor and/or leading state legislators to send them a message, to urge them to hold the line in rejecting state health care exchanges. I have listed them below by state. Keep checking back on our Take Action page as more may be added in the near future.

In the end, Obamacare could possibly be nullified through all of our hard work, by making your voice heard in individual states, and through states taking action and fighting the federal government's illegal distribution of subsidies and enforcement of mandates within their borders.

The irony however is that this all starts with inaction - the states must not implement these exchanges. They must do nothing.

I agree with Richard. I am also irritated that no challenges to the "John Roberts ruling" have not been made by Congress. Since when does any judge have the right to change the wording in a law presented to him as passed by Congress, then rule on the law based on his personal changed wording of the law? Wouldn't the changed wording represent a new law which would then have to be voted on again by Congress? Or is it that I am just being too logical?
This pathetic ruling is why I have a: "Impeach John Roberts" sticker on my car. It doesn't matter if the judge is conservative or liberal, once they become activist, it's time for impeachment.

I think everyone reading this should pass this on to their complete address book. I know of no one who wants this unfair burden on American citizens. Please pass this on and take action. Do not take no for an answer from your state congress!!
PLEASE GOD HELP US!!!

Aren't we all supposed to be treated "equally under the law"? Obamacare seems to violate that since the ruling elite (White House staff, legislators, unions, et al) are allowed different plans from Obamacare. Couldn't this be challenged? Why Rolls Royce plans for ruling elite who force us into a program that isn't equal to theirs?

I've looked into this a bit myself. One thing that's interesting is that, when the Senate passed the ACA, they did so using a "shell bill" which was originally a bill passed in the House to provide a tax credit for veteran housing before they ripped out the original content and inserted the ACA. When they passed the bill, as I'm sure you recall, they needed a 60 vote majority to avoid the filibuster. This is significant because it means that, procedurally, they were treating the bill as if it did not have a tax element. Had it had a tax element, it would have been possible for them to pass it under special rules with a simple majority. This could be used to prove to a judge that, when the law was passed, it was not treated as a tax. And given the unorthodox way that the law was passed, having originated in the Senate using a procedural trick, I think there is grounds to ask the court to, if not repeal it, at least send it back to the House for a proper vote, now that the court established that the bill did, in fact, contain a tax. I have written Jay Sekulow of the ACLJ to request that he look into this possibility and perhaps bring a case.

Gary Lancaster, The President first said it is not a Tax then the Court said it is a Tax. If then it is a Tax, it must be a Tax without "due legislative process" in defiance of our Constitution, so then how can it be a Tax. Tax or no Tax, it is "Tyrany". This fight is about Liberty not "healthcare", and if we concede to the enemies here we'll have neither "Liberty nor Health". Who are we but fools to entrust our heath choices to Government Bearucrats? Is the American spirit so Dead that we now would rather be Red? Is their one statesman Doctor ,Lawyer,Legislator, Red White and Blue American that believes the cause of Liberty is a Noble cause worth Dying for, We Need You!!!!

Gary Lancaster, The President first said it is not a Tax then the Court said it is a Tax. If then it is a Tax, it must be a Tax without "due legislative process" in defiance of our Constitution, so then how can it be a Tax. Tax or no Tax, it is "Tyrany". This fight is about Liberty not "healthcare", and if we concede to the enemies here we'll have neither "Liberty nor Health". Who are we but fools to entrust our heath choices to Government Bearucrats? Is the American spirit so Dead that we now would rather be Red? Is their one statesman Doctor ,Lawyer,Legislator, Red White and Blue American that believes the cause of Liberty is a Noble cause worth Dying for, We Need You!!!!

The Department of Health and Human Services expects ObamaCare enrollments through the federal and state exchanges to come in between 9 million and 9.9 million by the end of 2015, according to CNBC, far lower than the most recent estimate released by the Congressional Budget Office in April of this year:

More than a year after the Obama administration launched the federal ObamaCare exchange, HealthCare.gov, is still giving health insurance companies problems. Though the second open enrollment period is just days away from launching, backend systems that are supposed to communicate with insurers aren't yet finished, according to Politico:

ObamaCare is, once again, headed to the nation's highest court. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments over an IRS rule that granted tax credit subsidies to states that opted not to create an ObamaCare exchange. By granting review, the Supreme Court is going against the wishes of the Obama administration, which had argued that the case, King v. Burwell, should work its way through lower courts:

A majority of HealthCare.gov and state-based exchange users say they don't plan to use the ObamaCare exchanges when the second open enrollment period begins on November 15, according to a survey conducted by BankRate.com. Experts surmise that many consumers who bought health plans on the exchanges will auto-renew, which could mean they'll end up paying more for coverage.

In September 2009, during an interview with a local Fox affiliate, Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) told Coloradans that "[i]f you have an insurance policy you like, doctor or medical facility that provides medical services to you, you'll be able to keep that doctor or that insurance policy." There was no ambiguity in his statement, just the same line that was repeated by President Obama and other Senate Democrats to help sell ObamaCare to a skeptical public.

Young people who have, under the threat of a punitive tax, purchased health insurance coverage on the individual market have seen their premiums skyrocket under ObamaCare. While premiums have increased substantially for everyone, a new study shows that millennials have seen larger increases than their older counterparts:

The effects of the Affordable Care Act have been so unpleasant that it is becoming increasingly hard even to find Democrats willing to praise the law. So far, ObamaCare has done pretty much the exact opposite of everything its architects promised. But it would be naive to expect Democrats to admit their mistake outright. Instead of acknowledging the increasingly difficult to deny truth that ObamaCare is a disaster that needs to be uprooted in its entirety, the go-to talking point has become that the law just needs to be “fixed.” With the right legislative patches, they argue, we can transform this lumbering behemoth into something that can actually function.

In his 2006 book, Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama, then the junior senator from Illinois, explained that "perhaps our most pressing task is to fix our broken healthcare system," adding that "the two main government-funded healthcare programs -- Medicare and Medicaid -- really are broken." During the early stages of the healthcare reform debate in 2009, he again emphasized these two "broken" programs.

On October 1st of last year, ObamaCare’s inaugural enrollment period launched with all of the grace of a rocket exploding on its launch pad. Double-digit premium hikes, cancelled plans, and non-functioning websites caused misery for millions, leaving even supporters of the law lacking for words at times. This October there is silence, with few outside of the beltway focused on anything to do with ObamaCare.

Just last week the Associated Press released a survey finding that 25 percent of Americans are "not confident" that they'll be able to afford medical care in the event of a major health problem. The results underscore one of the central problems with ObamaCare, that is the high deductibles that often come with health plans on the Exchanges.